glestfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Mods/List
Catigorizing the Rest What to put the remaining few under? You missed Military completely, and there's the list at the bottom: *Nihilirian Mod - two new factions. More info at Nihilirian on ModDB and the Linux fixhere *Robotech-v0.4! - Modified version of magitech with some new units! *Star Ship Troopers - humans vs bugs! *Demonionic/DomiNeonic - Victorian-age Europeans! *Armies of the Old World - based on Warhammer (more info) *Magitech Heroes - based on defense of the ancients and heroes of newerth. What to catigorize it under? It isn't properly a compilation, though it does have scenarios and maps from various sources, there's still only 1 faction. It isn't really just a faction though either... Any ideas? I'm thinking closest is a tech tree, though it doesn't have the 2 faction req for that... *Nihilirian should be under whatever we put military under (maybe a new catigory for "Stand Alone" mods?). *SST would probably count the same I guess... *Demonionic should be techtree. *Armies of the old world... techtree? *Magitech heroes... I'm not sure... Perhaps techtree too? I haven't the foggiest what Robotech is and am not bothering to look, so you guys are on your own for that. What do you think? Should we do those and create a new catigory for "Stand Alone" Mods? ~Hofmic 03:31, June 13, 2010 (UTC) I know, I see that everytime I edit this page...but I don't really know...Robotech...I think it was a techtree? Ask Archmage... Armies of the old world? more of a mod pack, but could also be called a techtree...I'm not sure. :/ Well, I don't know... :/ Hopefully someone else would know... Ultifd 06:47, June 23, 2010 (UTC) Misc. Hmm, half of the descriptions for the forum links are called..."Glest Forum Topic" , and the other half is "forum discussion"... so which is better? :-/ Ultifd 06:50, June 23, 2010 (UTC) Planned Major Revamp Ahoy, Glesters. As you notice, this page has been renamed, as part of a planned revamp of sections of the Wiki to make them more accessible to viewers. What I have planned for this page, however, is far more than a simple rename. I want to convert all this data into one big table that is well organized, sortable, ensures standards for each mod in it. This is to be done with Wiki table syntax, NOT the table HTML tags (whenever possible, try and use Wiki syntax instead of HTML tags). Therefore, this will be a major overhaul and will require skill with tables. Anyone want to volunteer? I can do it when I get the time, but of course, anyone else is welcome to as well :). Feel free to give opinions below. 02:10, February 12, 2011 (UTC) :Can't believe I just did that... Took a long while. Factions that are part of a techtree (in other words, duplicates) were removed. Most links were oddly broken and I have no clue what they once directed to, so had to be removed. The tables are very limited in size, due to not only having the content area a set 1000px width, but having the GUI elements like recent activity taking up even more space! Thus, the tables are just OVERVIEWS for more of a quick list and simplified comparison. The name should link to a separate page for that mod which can contain more information. :Note that the tables are still quite crowded. I'm debating whether we should just merge all the factions and techtrees into ONE table, and exclude the maps, tilesets, and scenarios categories (after all, most mods are available only in that techtree, whereas all big-name tilsets are usually available standalone). The advantage is that by removing the unnecessary columns, we can have less crowded columns. Currently, just alphabetically sorted by mod name, though I'm investigating how sortable columns work on Wikia. 21:07, February 17, 2011 (UTC) ::Oh, yes, forgot to mention that mods that consist of only retextured models and of extremely poor quality (Science) have been removed from this list. If consensus agrees to it, they can be readded, but I really see no reason to... 21:09, February 17, 2011 (UTC) ::: I think, well, why not. I mean, some mods are just retextured are listed in the other table. Also, Romans is now included in the megapack, so shouldn't that be removed? ::: Oh no...damm it Omega, you didn't copy the links of the people who created the Mods too! Now I have to do that all over again :( ::: Ultifd 06:33, February 23, 2011 (UTC) ::::Meh, remove any retextured mods I may have missed. I haven't played some of the lesser known mods so left them in to be safe. And yeah, remove romans if it's in the Megapack. By the way, there's no real need to have links for each creator, as not only are many of them inactive accounts on the Glest Board, but it's generally unnecessary to link to them. :::::I disagree, about the creators' links. I guess I'll just have to do it manually someday. Most of them aren't inactive anyways. Ultifd 19:47, February 23, 2011 (UTC) What's missing It would be great to extend the table by a compatibility (MG/GAE/Glest) column. Required minimum version may also be good to track, as well as the type of packaging. Also, screenshots or URLs of these would be nice to have. Ideally, all of this information should be exportable to CSV so it could be reused as structured data, e.g. to import it to a database. 15:12, October 7, 2011 (UTC) tomreyn :I agree. I'll try to add a compatibility column later. As for making it exportable to CSV, I don't really see any practical way of doing so on the wiki. =/ 15:22, October 9, 2011 (UTC)